Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

There is no consensus in the US as to what that really means these days.

When the Constitution was written, the ability of the citizens (meaning white male land-owners) to possess arms was considered necessary not only because the US was still largely a frontier nation with no 911 service, but also because an armed citizenry was less easily suppressed and controllled by a potentially corrupt or unjust government.

However, back then, the citizens had the practical ability to possess the same level of firearms as the government. These days with tanks, missles, aircraft, smart bombs, nukes, bio-chem, satellites, etc, it's unlikely that a bunch of dudes with pistols and shotguns are going to be able to prevent the government from oppressing them if it decides to.

The range of public opinion spans all the way from people that think no private citizen should legally be allowed to possess any kind of gun to people that are grumpy that they're not allowed to buy 2 or 3 cases of the newest machine guns and hand grenades and would drive an M1A1 to work if there was parking available.

Generally, it's legal for any citizen to own a hand gun, shotgun or rifle. States have various laws regulating WHO can own a gun (convicted felons usually can't, for example) and what KINDS of guns are legal (fully automatic guns, assault rifles, certain types of ammo, laser sights and noisy crickets are illegal in many states, etc).

So the simple answer to your question is that US citizens are allowed to own guns in every state. Who and what kind of gun varies, though.

FYI, the conflict between state laws and the US Constitution has been going on since 1787. On paper, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no state law can override it. The practice of determining what state laws are unconstitutional is very complicated and promises lasting job security for hordes of lawyers.

There is a weapons "restriction" in Chicago. While the 2nd Amendment may imply that it's the right of an American to bear arms, there are legal loop-holes that allows you to essentially ban them.

Take the "restriction" on Marijuana. In order to legally possess marijuana, you need to pay a "ticket tax." Without the ticket tax, any marijuana in your possession is illegal. But here is the catch, in order to obtain the ticket tax, you need to present the drug to some government agency to process it. As a result, you need to be in possession of the drug first, which is illegal since you don't have the ticket tax.

Same concept can be used with firearms. It's not really a ban, but a restriction that makes it impossible to legally posses them.

There is a weapons "restriction" in Chicago. While the 2nd Amendment may imply that it's the right of an American to bear arms, there are legal loop-holes that allows you to essentially ban them.

Take the "restriction" on Marijuana. In order to legally possess marijuana, you need to pay a "ticket tax." Without the ticket tax, any marijuana in your possession is illegal. But here is the catch, in order to obtain the ticket tax, you need to present the drug to some government agency to process it. As a result, you need to be in possession of the drug first, which is illegal since you don't have the ticket tax.

Same concept can be used with firearms. It's not really a ban, but a restriction that makes it impossible to legally posses them.

yeah.. its like a weird cycle... but if the thing falls out of the sky, you can have it

This is my understanding (although some gun rights fanatic may school me on this):

Technically the US Constitution only applies to the Federal government, not state governments. But there's a loophole, where the Supreme Court can decide that parts of the Constitution apply to states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Over time they have used this loophole to make all but a few rights from the Bill of Rights apply to states. The 2d Amendment's right to bear arms is one of the few rights that have not been extended to the states (along with the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases). So states technically can outright ban guns if they want. Now I know they just had that Washington DC case . . but DC isn't a state and I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court still has not extended the 2d Amendment right to bear arms to the states.

The Gun Restriction in DC was unconstitutional, and was over turned by the Supreme Court. Of course it will take a while for that to actually take effect and for that to be applied to NYC and other areas. Gun Control is the shiny object Liberals use to distract people from the real problem. Gun laws only keep the law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. The term "assault rifle" is also a completely ridiculous term too. It refers to military style weapons, it has nothing to do with cailber or function merely physical attributes. There are far bigger caliber rifles that are also semi automatic that are not considered assault rifles because they aren't "military style" Anyway...some of them are reasonable...I agree there is no reason for a person to own a fully automatic weapon, none whatsoever, but restricting other firearms isn't a helpful measure..../end rant